Taylor screws up bad firearms ordinance update? Any ideas people?

autosurgeon said:

This is known as upping the ante they are wanting to see if we are serious and will call them on this crap.

Click to expand...

Glock9mmOldStyle said:

Anyone think we need to make another appearance? Maybe December 16th?

Click to expand...

TheQ said:

December 16, 177(3?) - Boston Tea Party

Click to expand...

scot623 said:

By them rewriting the firearm ordinance in this manner, I feel it directly violates MCL 123.1102. They have written a NEW law. It would seem to me, that once this new ordinance is officially adopted, we would then be able to move against it and the city. Why not just write all sorts of cooky crap, like " it is illegal to wear a turban, unless a court finds this ordinance illegal...then you can." WTF?

Click to expand...

Venator said:

They are still banning firearms in parks. They can't do that lawfully. I suggest people go to the next meeting and explain MCL 123.1102 to them again.

How does this "new" ordinance compare to the old??? Seems like it's the same thing.

Click to expand...

scot623 said:

MCL 123.1102 does not make it illegal to have an old outdated firearm ordinance on the books as long as it's not being enforced. No where does it say all old firearm ordiances must be repealed. It does make it illegal to write NEW firearm ordinances that are more restrictive than the state. And that what they've done. Fools.

Click to expand...

Venator said:

I realize this.

You would have to cite where it's illegal to enact a new firearm ban. My understanding is they can enact illegal ordinances at anytime, no law against that, they just can't enforce them. That's what the severability clause is for.

My point is they have done nothing to correct the old ordinance.

Click to expand...

scot623 said:

123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.
Sec. 2.

A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(du...g.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-123-1102

Says they can't enact right in the first line.

Click to expand...

Venator said:

Well, doesn't address your claim. What is the penalty for doing it? Things against the law tend to have some sort of remedy or fine/punishment involved.

Beside, the statute doesn't say when the ordinance was enacted, just that they can't enforce them, so old ordinances would be as unlawful as new ones, I don't think the date of enactment is relevant or clearly stated in the statute.

The statute covers taxation, enactment and/or enforcment of any firearm bans.

Click to expand...

Wglide90 said:

They added the part at minimum, "No person shall have........blah blah blah........Contrary to state law".

When they write the ord in this manner it covers everything except what is covered by state law. In other words they regulate everything except firearms.

It is a backwards method of complying to state law, but is inclusive of all ords that regulate all the stuff they list, while allowing state laws on firearms to be in effect that excludes firearms from this ord. It reads bad but I think in legalese, it is lawful.

There may be other issues that are not covered but for open carry and possession, state law allows and this ord allows state law to regulate.

I wouldn't be too hasty in jumping on them, until we get a better legal opinion on the wording.

BTW, I'm not a lawyer, so this is my opinion.

Click to expand...

scot623 said:

There is no penalty. But by enacting a new law in 2010(clearly addressed in 123.1102), after 1991 when 123.1102 went into effect, the city has in fact broken the law. If taken to court, a Judge would rule the ordinance illegal and most likey strike it from the books. 123.1102 clearly says no laws can be enacted(new laws) or enforced(pertaining to old laws).

Click to expand...

scot623 said:

123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.
Sec. 2.

A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(du...g.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-123-1102

Says they can't enact right in the first line.

Click to expand...

zigziggityzoo said:

123.1103 Permissible prohibitions or regulation.
Sec. 3.

This act does not prohibit a local unit of government from doing either of the following:

(a) Prohibiting or regulating conduct with a pistol or other firearm that is a criminal offense under state law.

(b) Prohibiting or regulating the transportation, carrying, or possession of pistols and other firearms by employees of that local unit of government in the course of their employment with that local unit of government.


Sounds like they're trying (A) here.

Click to expand...

NHCGRPR45 said:

maybe, but since state law already covers it why bother wasteing the ink?

Click to expand...